[jimworcs]

I was being kind of ironic, but I have another, real suggestion. The government regulates misleading pricing. The problem with the current situation is that extremists like Ryanair end up posting prices which are in effect no available. They see everything as an "optional" extra. At one point, they even sought to charge for the wheelchair people needed and only after losing a court case did they have to drop it. Even then, they simply levied an outrageous "wheelchair" charge on every passenger (avoiding charges of disability discrimination).

In the US, I seem to recall that the government had to intervene when airlines posted the one-way fare between city pairs which was impossible to buy, because it was only available if you bought a return.

This spiral is caused by the phenonomen of passengers seeking the "lowest" headline fare without understanding the total fare. Airlines exploit this.

I think the answer is for regulation of the advertising. Airlines should be required to post only fares which can actually be bought at that price, including all mandatory charges. I would also like to see a requirement that additional charges for basics such as luggage having to be posted in the same advertisement. Thus the passenger can see that all the airfare, including all mandatory charges is $100, the bag will cost $50. Total $150. This would allow proper price comparison and stop the misleading practice.

Ryanair for example, charge a credit card processing free of £5 ($8) per person, per segment for all credit and debit cards. It is often the case that the "credit card processing fee" is higher than the airfare. They avoid having to include this in the fare by allowing customers to use an "Electron" card in the UK for free. Only 8% of all cards issued in the UK are branded as "Electron". This is highly misleading and ought to be regulated.

Similarly, Ryanair will soon raise their charge for some bags to £70 per bag ($110). That is a ridiculous fee which they argue is designed to discourage people checking bags into the hold. I argue that it's real purpose is to allow Ryanair to market their services for free or very low prices, which in reality don't exist for the majority of customers.

So there you have, I have got back to my usual rant: End monopolies and re-regulate. There you didn't expect me to adopt that position did you!! lol

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

In the US, I seem to recall that the government had to intervene when airlines posted the one-way fare between city pairs which was impossible to buy, because it was only available if you bought a return.

No. Airlines are still allowed to advertise fares as one way. If a round-trip purchase is necessary there must be additional verbiage in the ad which discloses this and to date most if not all US airlines have abided by that. I can remember in the past, and it may be somewhat "ancient history" now, there may have been a few instances when the "one-way based on round-trip purchase" statement was inadvertently left out of a print ad and the airline was called out on the carpet for it but I can't remember details. Perhaps our friend at the DOT which enforces those rules can chime in here but I was able to find the relevant info. on the US DOT's website:

Over the past several years we have disseminated a series of Industry Letters addressing a variety of price advertising matters. Here is a brief chronological list of those letters:

• May 1, 1992 - The letter concerned the listing in fare advertisements of government-imposed taxes and fees that are collected by air carriers. It gave examples of how to appropriately disclose the existence of taxes and fees which may be stated separately (e.g., customs fees, departure taxes and PFCs) as compared to those which may not be stated separately and must be included in the advertised fare (e.g., ad valorem fuel taxes).
• December 20, 1994 (signed by Secretary Peña) - Among other important consumer issues, it addressed the following advertising topics: “Two-for-one” fares, “percent off” sales, and adequate disclosure of capacity controls and blackout dates.
• March 9, 1995 - It announced that we intended to take enforcement action against any carrier whose “each-way” fare advertising does not comply with our enforcement policy. This policy requires such ads to disclose round-trip purchase requirements clearly and conspicuously (i.e., prominent and proximate to the advertised fare).
• July 14, 1995 - This letter further clarified our policy on advertising “air tour package” fares, and additional charges such as government-imposed taxes and fees. As was done in our earlier letter of May 1, 1992, this letter lists a number of acceptable ways of listing various fees and surcharges which are not included in the advertised price of the total air tour package. The main point of the letter is to reiterate the Department’s position that consumers should be able to determine from a fare advertisement the full price to be paid the seller for the entire tour package being advertised.

(emphasis mine)
Additionally most US airlines for domestic fares have adopted Southwest's pricing model of using one-way fares without the requirement of a round-trip purchase. So-called "excursion" fares which require a round-trip purchase and a minimum stay requirement are rare in domestic markets. Usually only deeply discounted "sale" fares are marketed this way to exclude most business passengers who usually return on a Thursday evening or Friday.

Originally Posted by jimworcs

I think the answer is for regulation of the advertising.

These regulations already exist.

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Airlines should be required to post only fares which can actually be bought at that price, including all mandatory charges.

We've been down this road before, Jim. So many taxes are based on the number of segments and which airports are used (US segment taxes, Passenger Facilities Charges (PFC) and the "9/11" security tax) that it would be impossible to lump those in with the base fare. How is the airline to know before hand which airports the customer might transit during his or her journey and how many connections they will need to make before reaching the destination. If Continental were to advertise a $99 fare from Phoenix to Newark they could assume since there's non-stop service between here and there that $99 would be "all in." So they advertise a one-way fare of $99 all inclusive. When I shop for a fare to Newark I am often presented with the option to connect in Houston or Cleveland and sometimes even double-connect if the fare is available on those flights. The fare may even be sold out on the non-stops forcing one to choose the connecting itinerary to get the lowest fare. Now that $99 fare has to be appended with the additional segment tax, $3.60, the "9/11" security tax, $2.50, the PFC for Houston or Cleveland, $4.50, for an additional $10.60. These are taxes and fees collected by the airline but do not go t the airline. So under your "rules" Continental would still have to charge me $99 but instead of keeping $81.49 from the non-stop itinerary ($99 less $6.91 Federal Excise tax and less $10.60 segment+9/11+PFC) they would only net $70.89 (same equation less an additional $10.60). That, Jim, is just preposterous!

Originally Posted by jimworcs

I would also like to see a requirement that additional charges for basics such as luggage having to be posted in the same advertisement. Thus the passenger can see that all the airfare, including all mandatory charges is $100, the bag will cost $50. Total $150. This would allow proper price comparison and stop the misleading practice.

Websites such as Orbitz and Expedia now state very clearly that additional baggage fees may apply. Not everyone checks a bag and the fees vary from airline to airline. I just did a test booking on Delta.com. Very prominently displayed at the top of the itinerary choices is this:

Today's Guaranteed Best Fares

1-stop Itineraries


Base Fare From $278.00 (USD) round trip additional taxes & fees apply
Multi-stop Itineraries


Base Fare From $391.00 (USD) round tripadditional taxes & fees apply

Additionally after each grouping of flights this:

Segment Base Fare From $278.00 Trip Type round trip
+ Taxes$37.90 Taxes/Fees = Full Fare$315.90

And when I select the flights I want, this:

Trip Summary

In order to search and book flights by price, plus take full advantage of delta.com, please enable cookies and JavaScript in your browser preferences. If these features are disabled, you will need to search and book flights by schedule. Refer to our web compatibility page for more details.
Avoid direct ticketing charges and online booking fees. Prices shown include all taxes and fees.
Additional baggage charges may apply

So only after I've selected an itinerary and the number of segments and airports is known, I get the "all-in" price and a statement that additional baggage charges may apply with a hyper-link to those charges should I choose to read about them. Sadly many poor dolts skim right over this information and then come on here to claim "I was never told" or "it was never disclosed."

One or more of your selected flights is not eligible for Pay with Miles. If you choose to continue with this itinerary, you will not be able to use Pay with Miles

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Ryanair for example, charge a credit card processing free of £5 ($8) per person, per segment for all credit and debit cards. It is often the case that the "credit card processing fee" is higher than the airfare. They avoid having to include this in the fare by allowing customers to use an "Electron" card in the UK for free. Only 8% of all cards issued in the UK are branded as "Electron". This is highly misleading and ought to be regulated.

Perhaps, but RyanAir can't possibly know which card one intends to use. Perhaps they should lump it into the fare but then claim one will receive a £5 "discount" if one uses an "Electron" branded card!

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Similarly, Ryanair will soon raise their charge for some bags to £70 per bag ($110). That is a ridiculous fee which they argue is designed to discourage people checking bags into the hold. I argue that it's real purpose is to allow Ryanair to market their services for free or very low prices, which in reality don't exist for the majority of customers.

Wow! RyanAir really likes to push the limit, don't they. I guess they want to market themselves as the "backpacker's airline" and expect one to live for an entire week's holiday off of what they can carry on. The problem is people will still fly RyanAir for that ultra low fare and still cough up the £70 for the checked bag. Every bit of cheese they nibble on opens a door to another part of the maze! Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by jimworcs

So there you have, I have got back to my usual rant: End monopolies and re-regulate. There you didn't expect me to adopt that position did you!! lol

If there was re-regulation wouldn't it just create regulated monopolies?

[ChrisH]

I talked to my manager, who was at company headquarters for a meeting a few weeks ago. I will not say what airline, but one major airline is thinking about starting to charge for carry ons as well. If one airline starts, the others will follow. I believe we will soon see a change to the carry on policy, to just one bag, instead of the one bag, AND a personal item (purse, laptop, backpack) rule that exists now. I also think we will soon see a charge for carry ons. This same airline is also thinking about charging people for selecting exit rows, and aisle seats. I know AirTran does this already. Again, once one major airline starts, the others will follow.

This does not mean any of the above is set to happen for sure, but according to my manager, the revenue department, etc., are all looking into it. They have realized how much money they are making on checked baggage, hence the reason the prices keep going up on checked baggage, and now they are looking to expand those fees to other areas, creating new revenue opportunities. At the rate things are going, I say start driving to your destinations. At least then you have control over getting there, control over your own luggage, and even if there is weather, or other issues that may slow you down, you still have control of continuing the trip, and not being faced with rampid charges, cancelled flights, and then no other flights to get you to your destination, leaving you stranded, etc.